When does it get hard

Mr. Flibble · 24-11-2006 8:34pm #1

After reading thebruiser500's Q&A session where he was asked at what level does online poker get hard, to which he answered it was a silly question that has no answer, I got thinking.
Perhaps this is a question which does have an answer:

If you were playing online where all of your opponents had their names blanked and each hand all the opponents were replaced randomly with another table of opponents so you have no reads - but your opponents did know who you were as if they had been playing with you for as many hands as you played in this scenario, at what level do you think NLH is beatable by a world class player?

So basically, at what level can a very good player beat the game with no reads. Only using good mechanics of NLH.

sikes · 24-11-2006 8:36pm

Mr. Flibble wrote:

Odds of flopping a set with a pocket pair: 25:1.

you sure?!

Mr. Flibble · 24-11-2006 8:50pm

sikes wrote:

you sure?!

Yes

Brendygg · 24-11-2006 8:53pm

not 8-1?

cardshark202 · 24-11-2006 8:55pm

You're wrong about the odds of flopping a set anyway.

I think if anyone worked hard enough, had the discipline and good bankroll management, then they could beat the game at almost any level.

sikes · 24-11-2006 8:55pm

Mr. Flibble wrote:

Yes

so i guess you can never call for set value so.

50 cards left, 2 of which give you a set, 3 times....

NickyOD · 24-11-2006 10:02pm

7.5-1 even [/nitpick]

Some people will never be better than average because they are incapable of being logical thinkers. Then there are people who excel in logic much further than others so bruiser is right its a silly question that doesn't have an answer.

ianmc38 · 24-11-2006 10:08pm

I think it's about 50-1 to hit a set on the flop. Based on my recent run with pocket pairs it's more like 500-1, but the mathematical solution is of course 50-1 or thereabouts...

El Stuntman · 24-11-2006 10:12pm

cardshark202 wrote:

I think if anyone worked hard enough, had the discipline and good bankroll management, then they could beat the game at almost any level.

couldn't disagree more, you must also have card and people sense that goes beyond simple 'hard work'

Tar.Aldarion · 24-11-2006 10:20pm

To flop a set or better it is 11.8%(7.5-1)
To flop a set: 10.8% (8.3-1)
If I can recall stats lectures correctly...
Oh, this is if you are holding a pocket pair btw.

Edit: If holding unmatched cards I think it is 1.35% (73-1) for one of your hole cards.

slegs · 24-11-2006 10:42pm

50-1 for receiving a pair and flopping a set sounds bout right

Tar.Aldarion · 24-11-2006 10:46pm

I think it is 37.073073(recurring to infinity) - 1 but correct me if I am wrong.

EDIT: I'll correct myself.
You have 10.8% of 5.9%(0.6372%, 156.9365-1) chance to hit a set on the flop if you have no cards in your hand and are about to be dealt. This is the chance of getting a pocket pair and then a set.
You have 2.7%(1.35x2, 37.073073-1) chance of getting a set on the flop with two unmatched cards.

Mr. Flibble · 24-11-2006 10:57pm

cardshark202 wrote:

You're wrong about the odds of flopping a set anyway.

I think if anyone worked hard enough, had the discipline and good bankroll management, then they could beat the game at almost any level.

A normal game perhaps but without reads I certainly don't think this is possible.

I have empirical evidence which says the odds are not 7.5 to 1, which is the commonly believed theory but are in fact much worse than that. I believe ianmc38 may also have similar evidence of this fact.

Arthurdaly · 24-11-2006 11:02pm

Point is poker is a game! And it should be just played as a game.
But the greed and the obsession sets in and it becomes a compulsion.
Some games are healthy and they can become a sucessful career but far too many people think they can make a career from playing online poker.
Its dark and an unhealthy career even if successful, many online junkies will argue different.
I guarantee if half the effort you guys put into anything else you would be successful at whatever field you chose.
Some intelligent guys post in the poker section, to name a few:
NOD, hector, manc, lucky, devore.
Any of you guys tell me that poker is'nt a compulsion and i'll eat my own sh*t.
From the moment a poker player buys a "how to book" thats when it stops being a game and fun.
Just a thought, but i guarnatee the bucks you earn will be heavily compenstated by real world loss.

Hitman Actual · 24-11-2006 11:27pm

Hang on a minute, what's this thread about? Three points under discussion already.

Mr Flibble wrote:

I have empirical evidence which says the odds are not 7.5 to 1, which is the commonly believed theory but are in fact much worse than that. I believe ianmc38 may also have similar evidence of this fact

I assume you're taking the piss. If not, what is this evidence you speak of?

Mr Flibble wrote:

If you were playing online where all of your opponents had their names blanked and each hand all the opponents were replaced randomly with another table of opponents so you have no reads - but your opponents did know who you were as if they had been playing with you for as many hands as you played in this scenario, at what level do you think NLH is beatable by a world class player?

So if you played 10 hands, your opponents would have those 10 hands of information on you? And you have zero info on them? I don't know online poker levels well enough to answer (don't know them at all really). But the more hands you played, the more likely you are to be outplayed, so the question is a bit flawed.

Arthurdaly wrote:

blah blah etc...

Great way to introduce yourself here. So if someone buys a book on their hobby, it's a compulsion? Or if someone buys a book on their profession, it's a compulsion? There are a lot of tech guys on here who I'd say have plenty of books on their job (I know I have), but I doubt they're too obsessive about their job. The same goes for poker. And while some people have hobbies just to unwind, etc, more ambitious people try to be good at whatever they're doing. It doesn't make it any less rewarding. Your post is just more stereotypical 'poker is the work of the devil' style BS.

Arthurdaly · 24-11-2006 11:36pm

Not really, difference being that you think poker is rewarding?
You think it's a healthy career/hobby? Maybe, but i think anyone that takes poker seriously has a compulsion. This is only compounded by the fact that there are poker players advising on situations that require indepth analysis of a situation. This to me seems like a compulsion.
I aint preaching but im sure there are online pros here that have suffered whilst not financially, but they definately have suffered.
They won't admit that to themselvers, well that's because its a compulasion.

Hitman Actual · 24-11-2006 11:45pm

Well, you could relate the compulsion thing to any hobby. But take someone who, say, spends five hours a day going brain-dead playing an Xbox360, and compare that to the person who has to actually use logic/strategy/etc, playing (and beating) a game of poker. Who's making better use of their time?

cardshark202 · 24-11-2006 11:49pm

Arthurdaly wrote:

Not really, difference being that you think poker is rewarding?
You think it's a healthy career/hobby? Maybe, but i think anyone that takes poker seriously has a compulsion. This is only compounded by the fact that there are poker players advising on situations that require indepth analysis of a situation. This to me seems like a compulsion.
I aint preaching but im sure there are online pros here that have suffered whilst not financially, but they definately have suffered.
They won't admit that to themselvers, well that's because its a compulasion.

lol

ntlbell · 24-11-2006 11:51pm

Arthurdaly wrote:

Not really, difference being that you think poker is rewarding?
You think it's a healthy career/hobby? Maybe, but i think anyone that takes poker seriously has a compulsion. This is only compounded by the fact that there are poker players advising on situations that require indepth analysis of a situation. This to me seems like a compulsion.
I aint preaching but im sure there are online pros here that have suffered whilst not financially, but they definately have suffered.
They won't admit that to themselvers, well that's because its a compulasion.

What do you think of profesional chess players?

Would you be worried if one of your friends was a chess player and purchased a book on it?

My job (not as a poker player) requires me to provide indepth analysis is this a compulsion? or is it that I now have the knowledge after years of analysing a simular situation and reading a ton of books on the given subject.

Your thinking is flawed, remove the blinkers before they cause you anymore "real world loss"

mormank · 24-11-2006 11:53pm

i would challenge anyone on this site to play one week in the suggested many and win. Bet no one could do it. However as it is an impossible task we will just hae to assume i am right!!!!

hey nicky whats up?

ntlbell · 24-11-2006 11:53pm

lenny_leonard wrote:

Well, you could relate the compulsion thing to any hobby. But take someone who, say, spends five hours a day going brain-dead playing an Xbox360, and compare that to the person who has to actually use logic/strategy/etc, playing (and beating) a game of poker. Who's making better use of their time?

If he's playing Gears of War or trying to regain his youth by mastering Street Fighter I would have to vote for the guy with the 360:D

Arthurdaly · 24-11-2006 11:53pm

Obviously no intelligent disscussion going on here, enjoy the poker gents.

ntlbell · 24-11-2006 11:56pm

Arthurdaly wrote:

Obviously no intelligent disscussion going on here, enjoy the poker gents.

Aww..You don't like Street Fighter?

Hitman Actual · 25-11-2006 12:02am

Arthurdaly wrote:

enjoy the poker gents.

Hang on a minute, thought you said we couldn't enjoy it cos it's a compulsion?

Arthurdaly · 25-11-2006 12:03am

Oh an intelligent response.
Your thinking is flawed bell. The ultimate goal of a poker player is to gain financial reward. A chess player plays to be the best in his chosen field.
To compare is absolutely ridiculous, poker is driven by money and financial reward whilst poker is driven by prestige and ultimalely by who is the best.
Your counter agruement will probably be the WSOP, which is a crap shoot at best...no skill involved.

curehead · 25-11-2006 12:12am

you mean chess yes
chess is driven........

ntlbell · 25-11-2006 12:16am

Arthurdaly wrote:

Oh an intelligent response.
Your thinking is flawed bell. The ultimate goal of a poker player is to gain financial reward. A chess player plays to be the best in his chosen field.
To compare is absolutely ridiculous, poker is driven by money and financial reward whilst poker is driven by prestige and ultimalely by who is the best.
Your counter agruement will probably be the WSOP, which is a crap shoot at best...no skill involved.

A profesional chess player doesn't play to pay the bills?

Profesional Snooker player makes more in the side games than any tournament spends hour after hour every single day to be the best in his chosen field.

compulsion? degenerate?

A profesional footballer doesn't play for financial reward?

I was starting to think you actually had an opinion but I've just realised you're a troll

Arthurdaly · 25-11-2006 12:51am

I actually know quite a bit about the professional snooker scene and know for a fact they don't make their money from appearance or money games so i dont know where your getting that info from, maybe in the day of alex higgins jimmy white when there was demand but not these days bud, obviously not well informed so dont think you should make that statement.
Your arguement is weak, poker players are looking for an easy way out, thats where the compulsion beings!
A prosfeesional football player begins from an early age works hard then has to get extremly lucky to make a youth team, then with an enormous amount of luck might get a contract. Then has to impress to make first team football.
If you have half a brain you might realise there is no comparision. You decide.

El Stuntman · 25-11-2006 1:13am

Arthurdaly wrote:

Your arguement is weak, poker players are looking for an easy way out, thats where the compulsion beings!
A prosfeesional football player begins from an early age works hard then has to get extremly lucky to make a youth team, then with an enormous amount of luck might get a contract. Then has to impress to make first team football.
If you have half a brain you might realise there is no comparision. You decide.

you will probably find that any decent poker player has served an 'apprenticeship' that will be much longer than any pro soccer player - it takes years to master this game and there is no 'easy way'

Arthurdaly · 25-11-2006 1:23am

I take your point, a small fraction of poker players will be successful, i acknowledge that fact. I my opinion if you do happen to be successful your sacraficing alot regardless.
You make a few meaningless dollars and that's about it.
My point is that poker is unhealthy and bordering on morbid.
To compare to poker to any sporting career is just ridiculous!
Bell could be next big thing in poker, could he do it in any sporting arena? No he couldnt! That requires natural talent.
Poker is an addiction just like booze, drugs n betting with a bookie.

El Stuntman · 25-11-2006 1:28am

Arthurdaly wrote:

I take your point, a small fraction of poker players will be successful, i acknowledge that fact. I my opinion if you do happen to be successful your sacraficing alot regardless.
You make a few meaningless dollars and that's about it.
My point is that poker is unhealthy and bordering on morbid.
To compare to poker to any sporting career is just ridiculous!
Bell could be next big thing in poker, could he do it in any sporting arena? No he couldnt! That requires natural talent.
Poker is an addiction just like booze, drugs n betting with a bookie.

believe me, all the top poker players have serious 'natural talent'

Poker can be addictive just like booze - 100% true. That does not mean that all poker players are gambling addicts, equally not everyone who takes a glass of wine with their dinner is an alcoholic. You seem to have a propensity for sweeping generalisations which invalidates your arguments imo

When does it get hard

Comments